Prosecution Insights
Last updated: October 27, 2026
Application No. 19/072,770

SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR BLOCKING A SURGE OF WATER

Non-Final OA §DP
Filed
Mar 06, 2025
Priority
Aug 20, 2020 — provisional 63/067,945 +2 more
Examiner
OQUENDO, CARIB A
Art Unit
3678
Tech Center
3600 — Transportation & Electronic Commerce
Assignee
The Texas A&M University System
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
78%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
4m
Est. Remaining
90%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 78% — above average
78%
Career Allowance Rate
669 granted / 858 resolved
+26.0% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.2%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Fast prosecutor
1y 11m
Avg Prosecution
20 currently pending
Career history
884
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.6%
-38.4% vs TC avg
§103
47.2%
+7.2% vs TC avg
§102
21.3%
-18.7% vs TC avg
§112
27.3%
-12.7% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 858 resolved cases

Office Action

§DP
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer. Claim 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-20 of copending Application No. 19/072786 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claim a system for blocking a surge of water including gates and a piston displeacable between a first position with an upper end of the piston position below the waterline and a second position that is spaced from the first position within the upper end of the piston positioned above the waterline. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. Allowable Subject Matter The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: As per allowed application 18/021969 and 19/072786 now U.S. Patent No. 12,270,170, Korean Patent Publication No. KR10-2013- 0064841 describes a barrier made from a buoyant foam piston 130 but does not disclose or suggest the invention as claimed including the sleeve below the waterline with a piston having an upper end below the waterline in the first position and above the waterline in the second position. Additionally, Korean Patent Publication No. KR10-2003-0063250 describes a barrier which is opened by displacing water by compressed air but does not disclose or suggest the invention as claimed including the sleeve below the waterline with a piston having an upper end below the waterline in the first position and above the waterline in the second position. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to CARIB A OQUENDO whose telephone number is (571)270-7411. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday, 9am-5:30pm. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Amber Anderson can be reached at 571-270-5281. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /CARIB A OQUENDO/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3678
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Mar 06, 2025
Application Filed
Sep 30, 2026
Non-Final Rejection mailed — §DP (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12768270
DEVICE FOR PROVIDING BRAIDS, SYSTEM COMPRISING THE DEVICE AND METHOD FOR PROVIDING BRAIDS
1y 12m to grant Granted Oct 20, 2026
Patent 12760650
EXCAVATED MATTER CONVEYANCE SYSTEM INSIDE DRIFTWAY
2y 0m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12760633
SYSTEMS AND METHODS FOR HORIZONTAL WELLS FOR IN-SITU MINING WITH OR WITHOUT ELECTROKINETIC ASSISTANCE
2y 2m to grant Granted Oct 13, 2026
Patent 12753565
MODULAR WALL SYSTEM
2y 10m to grant Granted Oct 06, 2026
Patent 12746586
METHOD FOR IN-SITU REMEDIATION OF CONTAMINATED SOIL THROUGH MULTI-TECHNOLOGY COUPLING
2y 3m to grant Granted Sep 29, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Get a prosecution strategy drawn from examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Typically takes 5-10 seconds — AI-generated, attorney review required before filing

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
78%
Grant Probability
90%
With Interview (+12.2%)
1y 11m (~4m remaining)
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 858 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allowance rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month